Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) welcomes Professor James Raftery’s helpful and timely article on the historical progress of value based pricing and some of the latest concepts now being considered by NICE (Value based pricing: can it work?, 19 October).
The ABPI supports a broader definition of value being used for appraising new medicines and indeed supported the original objectives of value based pricing stated in the Department of Health’s Consultation from 2011, which were: improving access to medicines and therefore patient outcomes; stimulating innovation; improving the comprehensiveness of value assessments and processes; and ensuring value for money for the NHS. However we said then and we continue to say now, that the devil will lie in the detail of how these objectives are actually delivered in practice. If we get this wrong then not only will we not deliver on them, but we risk significant unintended consequences being created for all stakeholders. It remains to be seen if these original objectives will be delivered in a way which will be acceptable to all stakeholders.
If reforms of the current system are done well, UK patients may be able to benefit from earlier and more consistent access to innovative medicines. If we get these wrong, patients may face even longer delays before they are able to benefit from innovative medicines, or worse, patients may not be able to benefit from them at all. In the past, the UK has been an attractive market supporting the early launch of new medicines, the proposed changes must not jeopardise this position.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Whitehead
Chief Executive, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry
Competing interests:
No competing interests
21 October 2013
Stephen Whitehead
Chief Executive
ABPI
7th Floor, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT
Re: Value based pricing: can it work?
Sir,
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) welcomes Professor James Raftery’s helpful and timely article on the historical progress of value based pricing and some of the latest concepts now being considered by NICE (Value based pricing: can it work?, 19 October).
The ABPI supports a broader definition of value being used for appraising new medicines and indeed supported the original objectives of value based pricing stated in the Department of Health’s Consultation from 2011, which were: improving access to medicines and therefore patient outcomes; stimulating innovation; improving the comprehensiveness of value assessments and processes; and ensuring value for money for the NHS. However we said then and we continue to say now, that the devil will lie in the detail of how these objectives are actually delivered in practice. If we get this wrong then not only will we not deliver on them, but we risk significant unintended consequences being created for all stakeholders. It remains to be seen if these original objectives will be delivered in a way which will be acceptable to all stakeholders.
If reforms of the current system are done well, UK patients may be able to benefit from earlier and more consistent access to innovative medicines. If we get these wrong, patients may face even longer delays before they are able to benefit from innovative medicines, or worse, patients may not be able to benefit from them at all. In the past, the UK has been an attractive market supporting the early launch of new medicines, the proposed changes must not jeopardise this position.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Whitehead
Chief Executive, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry
Competing interests: No competing interests